Former Anon spokesperson indicted for allegedly linking to stolen information

Barrett Brown was charged for sharing Stratfor credit card details.

On Friday, a federal grand jury in Dallas indicted Barrett Brown, a former self-proclaimed Anonymous spokesperson, for trafficking “stolen authentication features,” as well as "access device fraud" and “aggravated identity theft.” Brown has been detained since he was arrested in September for allegedly threatening a federal agent.

10 counts of the 12 count indictment concern the aggravated identity theft charge (the indictment references 10 people from whom Brown is alleged to have stolen information), but the most interesting charge is probably the first; a single count saying Brown, “did knowingly traffic in more than five authentication features knowing that such features were stolen and produced without lawful authority.” But rather than a physical back-alley hand-off, this alleged trafficking happened online when Barrett transferred a hyperlink, “from the Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channel called '#Anonops' to an IRC channel under Brown's control, called '#ProjectPM.'”

That hyperlink happened to include over 5,000 credit card numbers, associating Ids, and Card Verification Values (CVVs) from the Stratfor Global Intelligence database.

Brown acted as the public face of Anonymous during its rise to fame, but he left the group in May 2011, telling Ars, “There's little quality control in a movement like that, which was not a huge problem when the emphasis was on assisting with North African revolutions and those who came on board thus tended to be of a certain sort. But as things like OpSony [a May 2011 hack of Sony's PlayStation Network] arise, you attract a lot of people whose interest is in fucking with video game companies.”

In September, Brown was arrested by FBI just hours after he posted a YouTube video called “Why I'm Going to Destroy FBI Agent Robert Smith.” If convicted of these latest charges, the US Attorney's Office in the Northern District of Texas says that Brown faces maximum sentences of 15 years for the trafficking charge, 10 years for the device fraud charge, and a 2 year sentence for each of the identity theft counts, "in addition to any sentence imposed on the trafficking count."

45 Reader Comments

But rather than a physical back-alley hand-off, this alleged trafficking happened online when Barrett transferred a hyperlink, “from the Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channel called '#Anonops' to an IRC channel under Brown's control, called '#ProjectPM.'”

Unfortunately in the United States, there is precedent that mere linking makes one culpable of a crime. See all of the past stories about people arrested for hosting link aggregation sites to copyrighted material. I'm of the view that once the cat is out of the bag, the cat is out of the bag. If the government really wants to go after the "trafficker" then why not go after the person who uploaded the information the link pointed to?

But rather than a physical back-alley hand-off, this alleged trafficking happened online when Barrett transferred a hyperlink, “from the Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channel called '#Anonops' to an IRC channel under Brown's control, called '#ProjectPM.'”

Unfortunately in the United States, there is precedent that mere linking makes one culpable of a crime. See all of the past stories about people arrested for hosting link aggregation sites to copyrighted material. I'm of the view that once the cat is out of the bag, the cat is out of the bag. If the government really wants to go after the "trafficker" then why not go after the person who uploaded the information the link pointed to?

Because they are taking him down for publicity. Not actual crimes. He has been a face to the Anonymous organization, almost to the point where he considered himself untouchable. The way he freely spoke about the organization and his involvement was almost an insult to the Feds because they just had to stand there and listen, like everyone else.

Trust me when I say this arrest is not about what he did. It is about who he is.

And no, I am not apart of that organization, nor do I really care that he was arrested to begin with

This is how the modern prosecutorial system works. The laws are complex enough now that almost anything anyone does can be interpreted to be illegal under many different redundant laws. Prosecutors want wins. They know that they can charge someone with dozens of different things whose penalties add up to a couple of life terms. The defendant's attorney will have to tell his client that although he's pretty sure that most or all of the charges are bogus and should not hold up, nevertheless in this day and age who knows what a jury might do. So maybe it's a good idea to cop to an offered plea bargain and only spend a couple of years in jail. The prosecutor gets a win with no trial.

Risking trial can backfire: witness Dharun Ravi, the Rutgers gay dorm suicide defendant, who was overcharged and fought it and had the book thrown at him because of 24/7 cable news hysteria influencing the jury pool.

What we need to do is keep raising a stink until the unfortunate legal issue of mere links being prosecutable is changed. Push and push and push until the law changes such that merely linking to something, regardless of whether that linked thing is legal OR illegal, is itself absolutely, strictly protected by law and making any laws that call for prosecuting people for linking to something become absolutely, 100% illegal.

What we need to do is keep raising a stink until the unfortunate legal issue of mere links being prosecutable is changed. Push and push and push until the law changes such that merely linking to something, regardless of whether that linked thing is legal OR illegal, is itself absolutely, strictly protected by law and making any laws that call for prosecuting people for linking to something become absolutely, 100% illegal.

Unless "we" have the money to lobby for that, or a politician gets caught doing it, it won't change.

One thing you learn about Anonymous early on is how much they lie. Barrett Brown in fact got his start in Second Life, the online virtual world. He was one of the people who used to grief people like me, by hacking into the platform provider's god-mode. SL isn't a game as it is an open-ended virtual world, but it's still essentially a game-like place and Barrett in fact busy harassing people there -- so his claim to be "above" the hacker of Sony is really silly. He's exactly on their low level.

Barrett Brown is right where he needs to be.

Of course linking can be prosecuted. This isn't just merely writing about a subject or reading about a subject, it's providing material assistance to crime. You kids have to learn that the Internet is not special, not some magical autonomous unicorn realm. The rule of law applies in cyberspace.

Of course linking can be prosecuted. This isn't just merely writing about a subject or reading about a subject, it's providing material assistance to crime. You kids have to learn that the Internet is not special, not some magical autonomous unicorn realm. The rule of law applies in cyberspace.

I know the address of a crack house in the downtown area of my city. If I tell my friend "Hey, see that house, its a crack house" - should I prosecuted? Or better yet, I know the IRC address to AnonOps - if I give that information out, should I persecuted? Afterall, I am providing material assistance to where crimes take place.

If the Internet is not a special unicorn realm then maybe you should start paying attention to how ridiculous some of the laws are surrounding it.

Of course linking can be prosecuted. This isn't just merely writing about a subject or reading about a subject, it's providing material assistance to crime. You kids have to learn that the Internet is not special, not some magical autonomous unicorn realm. The rule of law applies in cyberspace.

I know the address of a crack house in the downtown area of my city. If I tell my friend "Hey, see that house, its a crack house" - should I prosecuted?

If the Internet is not a special unicorn realm then maybe you should start paying attention to how ridiculous some of the laws are surrounding it.

If someone asks you where they can buy crack and you provide them with that address you are in fact committing a crime and can be prosecuted for it.

Of course linking can be prosecuted. This isn't just merely writing about a subject or reading about a subject, it's providing material assistance to crime. You kids have to learn that the Internet is not special, not some magical autonomous unicorn realm. The rule of law applies in cyberspace.

I know the address of a crack house in the downtown area of my city. If I tell my friend "Hey, see that house, its a crack house" - should I prosecuted?

If the Internet is not a special unicorn realm then maybe you should start paying attention to how ridiculous some of the laws are surrounding it.

If someone asks you where they can buy crack and you provide them with that address you are in fact committing a crime and can be prosecuted for it.

But I can't be arrested for volunteering the information. By simply knowing where something is, is not enough to prosecute.

Basically (and in theory), if topham just mentioned offhand that it was a crack house, he's probably safe. If he knows the person is a crack addict, or was specifically asked, the situation changes.

I'm not sure what the rules are if you know a crime is going down but don't report it, e.g. failing to report the crack house. I want to say it's generally illegal (absent something like like a threat if you report), but I'm not sure.

Basically (and in theory), if topham just mentioned offhand that it was a crack house, he's probably safe. If he knows the person is a crack addict, or was specifically asked, the situation changes.

I'm not sure what the rules are if you know a crime is going down but don't report it, e.g. failing to report the crack house. I want to say it's generally illegal (absent something like like a threat if you report), but I'm not sure.

While I appreciate your perspective, I don't believe it's correct. I don't believe giving the address of a crack house rises to the level of aiding and abetting.

In other words, mere presence at the scene of a crime, even with guilty knowledge that a crime is being committed, isn't enough to make you liable for the crime itself, unless and until you do something to help the crime succeed.

(Emphasis mine)

While you have "guilty knowledge" that a crime may be committed, you do not know beforehand that crime will be committed and, should the crime take place, you have taken no active role in ensuring the success of the crime. It's not aiding and abetting. Therefore, unless it breaks some other law, it's not prosecutable.

I really do not want to come off as trying to defend Brown's actions or what he stands for. Obviously he has been a member of an organization that has been apart of many illegal activities that I do not agree with. On the other hand, it is just...interesting to see how far the government will stretch its leash in order to get an arrest. Linking, to me, is a stretch because he was not responsible for the information on that site. It just seems like "good enough" law enforcement. Bottom of the barrel charges that they hope stick.

I guess I was just hoping for our government to either have a strong case against Brown or sit on him and let him slip for a bigger crime, which he probably would have

Just like what's happening with weev, the FBI has shown it's not capable of focusing on and taking down serious electronic criminals who are harming people.

The fact that they're content with prosecuting some dumbass who claimed he was a voice of a completely anonymous organization speaks volumes, he's got nothing they want and didn't actually do anything but they're going to stick him to the wall anyways.

Of course linking can be prosecuted. This isn't just merely writing about a subject or reading about a subject, it's providing material assistance to crime. You kids have to learn that the Internet is not special, not some magical autonomous unicorn realm. The rule of law applies in cyberspace.

I know the address of a crack house in the downtown area of my city. If I tell my friend "Hey, see that house, its a crack house" - should I prosecuted? Or better yet, I know the IRC address to AnonOps - if I give that information out, should I persecuted? Afterall, I am providing material assistance to where crimes take place.

If the Internet is not a special unicorn realm then maybe you should start paying attention to how ridiculous some of the laws are surrounding it.

Of course you should be prosecuted. Providing information *that assists in a crime* whether or paper or the Internet or by voice is going to be prosecuted. Barrett Brown didn't just say "oh, look at that shiny link," he participated avidly in a destructive movement that hacked sites deliberately to cause damage.

There aren't any ridiculous laws surrounding it. SOPA was a perfectly sound law that in fact would have built up a good jurisprudence as to how to address these cases that would have stopped some of the alleged ICE abuses.

Unfortunately in the United States, there is precedent that mere linking makes one culpable of a crime. See all of the past stories about people arrested for hosting link aggregation sites to copyrighted material. I'm of the view that once the cat is out of the bag, the cat is out of the bag. If the government really wants to go after the "trafficker" then why not go after the person who uploaded the information the link pointed to?

Knowingly aiding and abetting criminal activity is in and of itself a crime. Before you are so quick to condemn such things, perhaps you should educate yourself about the law; it is this same thing that makes selling alcohol and cigarettes to someone you know is going to give them to a minor illegal. Same thing that makes selling a firearm to someone you know is going to give it to someone who isn't allowed to possess one illegal.

Running a link aggregation site for illegal content can indeed make you vulnerable to prosecution; just because you are not hosting the pirated content yourself does not mean you are not willfully aiding in the distribution of said content in a non-neutral manner.

So don't pretend you actually know what you're talking about; these laws exist for a very good reason, and it is precisely to nail people who aid in the commission of crimes without directly committing the crimes themselves.

Now, is what he did something which is worthy of prosecution? I don't know the specific details, but if he linked the content for the purposes of helping people commit crimes using said content, then yes, he could certainly be prosecuted for it. If he was linking it to say "Holy shit", then no.

Quote:

This is how the modern prosecutorial system works. The laws are complex enough now that almost anything anyone does can be interpreted to be illegal under many different redundant laws. Prosecutors want wins. They know that they can charge someone with dozens of different things whose penalties add up to a couple of life terms. The defendant's attorney will have to tell his client that although he's pretty sure that most or all of the charges are bogus and should not hold up, nevertheless in this day and age who knows what a jury might do. So maybe it's a good idea to cop to an offered plea bargain and only spend a couple of years in jail. The prosecutor gets a win with no trial.

Crazy rant is crazy. Seriously, prosecutions fail quite often in the United States.

Quote:

Risking trial can backfire: witness Dharun Ravi, the Rutgers gay dorm suicide defendant, who was overcharged and fought it and had the book thrown at him because of 24/7 cable news hysteria influencing the jury pool.

The problem was that the charges themselves were mostly nonsense. All hate crime laws are inherently idiotic, and its actually pretty clear that under the invasion of privacy law he actually was innocent.

That being said, he was undoubtedly guilty of attempting to hinder a police investigation. He never should have been prosecuted in relation to the webcam stuff though.

Quote:

I'm not sure what the rules are if you know a crime is going down but don't report it, e.g. failing to report the crack house. I want to say it's generally illegal (absent something like like a threat if you report), but I'm not sure.

Certain people have a duty to report crimes committed against certain people - teachers and guardians, for instance, have a duty to report crimes against those under their care. But in general, you do not have an obligation to report criminal activity.

That being said, you cannot obstruct justice - if a cop comes to you and asks you if something was going on, and something was going on, you have to answer honestly, otherwise you are obstructing and you -can- be charged with that.

Quote:

While I appreciate your perspective, I don't believe it's correct. I don't believe giving the address of a crack house rises to the level of aiding and abetting.

Your very own quote is why you are wrong.

Quote:

In other words, mere presence at the scene of a crime, even with guilty knowledge that a crime is being committed, isn't enough to make you liable for the crime itself, unless and until you do something to help the crime succeed.

The problem is that you are indeed helping the crime succeed, and even helping them commit the crime. If someone asks "Where can I buy some crack?" and you tell them, then you are indeed aiding in the commission of a crime.

Just like what's happening with weev, the FBI has shown it's not capable of focusing on and taking down serious electronic criminals who are harming people.

The fact that they're content with prosecuting some dumbass who claimed he was a voice of a completely anonymous organization speaks volumes, he's got nothing they want and didn't actually do anything but they're going to stick him to the wall anyways.

Anonymous isn't anonymous. That's one of the many lies they tell in their Big Lie. They love to brag and are terribly vain and have hazing rituals that involve outing each other and thrusting some into the limelight, and some of them are so arrogant that they can't resist getting into the news. Barrett Brown is right where he needs to be.

Just like what's happening with weev, the FBI has shown it's not capable of focusing on and taking down serious electronic criminals who are harming people.

The fact that they're content with prosecuting some dumbass who claimed he was a voice of a completely anonymous organization speaks volumes, he's got nothing they want and didn't actually do anything but they're going to stick him to the wall anyways.

Anonymous isn't anonymous. That's one of the many lies they tell in their Big Lie. They love to brag and are terribly vain and have hazing rituals that involve outing each other and thrusting some into the limelight, and some of them are so arrogant that they can't resist getting into the news. Barrett Brown is right where he needs to be.

My point actually was, anyone can say they are Anonymous. The fact that he thinks he was somehow a voice or 'representative' of the group them is laughable. He was a kid retweeting this stuff on twitter and hanging out in an IRC channel.

Of course linking can be prosecuted. This isn't just merely writing about a subject or reading about a subject, it's providing material assistance to crime. You kids have to learn that the Internet is not special, not some magical autonomous unicorn realm. The rule of law applies in cyberspace.

I know the address of a crack house in the downtown area of my city. If I tell my friend "Hey, see that house, its a crack house" - should I prosecuted? Or better yet, I know the IRC address to AnonOps - if I give that information out, should I persecuted? Afterall, I am providing material assistance to where crimes take place.

If the Internet is not a special unicorn realm then maybe you should start paying attention to how ridiculous some of the laws are surrounding it.

Of course you should be prosecuted. Providing information *that assists in a crime* whether or paper or the Internet or by voice is going to be prosecuted.

So the CNN writer who informed me that Pirate Bay is a site where I can download movies illegally is aiding and abetting? It doesn't add up - you can't simply say 'providing information that assists in a crime' is illegal. Where do you draw the line? (not you, you. but the government)

In other words, mere presence at the scene of a crime, even with guilty knowledge that a crime is being committed, isn't enough to make you liable for the crime itself, unless and until you do something to help the crime succeed.

(Emphasis mine)

While you have "guilty knowledge" that a crime may be committed, you do not know beforehand that crime will be committed and, should the crime take place, you have taken no active role in ensuring the success of the crime. It's not aiding and abetting. Therefore, unless it breaks some other law, it's not prosecutable.

The bit you posted is mostly correct; the issue is getting confused because of the context. All crimes have an "act" and a "mental state" connected with the act. To commit the crime, you have to do the "act" with the appropriate "mental state."

If a random guy happens to know the location of a crack house and volunteers the information at a party just because he knows it, there's no crime.

If someone asks random guy if he knows where a crack house is and, because he randomly knew it, he has also not committed a crime.

If (not so) random guy's friend runs the crack house, and random guy wants to help his friend's business prosper, and so to help his friend sell drugs he tells people where the crack house is, he *has* committed a crime. Specifically, he has committed dealing in cocaine.

In all of these examples, the only thing random guy did was tell someone where the crack house was (i.e., that was the only act he performed). The difference comes from the mental state associated with the act.

Breaking it down more, and using the statutes from my jurisdiction (redacted for clarity):

That's pretty straightforward: if you knowingly give cocaine to someone else, you're guilty of dealing in cocaine. That covers the person who runs the crack house.

For random guy, we look at the accomplice liability statute, which provides:

Quote:

A person who knowingly or intentionally aids, induces, or causes another person to commit an offense commits that offense[]

Inducing or causing aren't relevant here; aiding is. Generally, if I know that you are committing or intending to commit a crime, and I intentionally aid you in the commission of that crime, I am guilty of the same crime.

To expand slightly on the example above, if I know that you are selling cocaine, and with the intent to aid you in committing this crime, I tell people where your crack house is, I am also guilty of dealing in cocaine. (Conversely, if I tell them for *some other reason*, I'm not guilty of that crime.)

Keep in mind that the statement above is what the law is, but proving why someone was giving out the crack house address is more complicated.

WRT Brown, AFAICT, he isn't being prosecuted on a theory of accomplice liability, but as the primary. According to the indictment, he's charged with violating 18 USC 1028(a)(2), which makes it a crime to:

Quote:

(a)(2) knowingly transfer[] an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without lawful authority

IOW, if you know that this information is stolen [he's specifically charged concerning the "authentication feature," which is the CVV on the back of a credit card] and you knowingly give it to another person, you have committed the crime.

I guess I don't really see much of an issue with him having linked the data rather than, say, pasting it in the body of an e-mail. If it's a crime to give stolen credit card numbers to someone else, I don't think it matters, or should matter, whether you e-mail the numbers, mail the numbers by USPS, or post a link to the numbers.

So the CNN writer who informed me that Pirate Bay is a site where I can download movies illegally is aiding and abetting? It doesn't add up - you can't simply say 'providing information that assists in a crime' is illegal. Where do you draw the line? (not you, you. but the government)

Barrett Brown isn't analogous to "a CNN writer". He's a hands-on, active, deeply involved griefer who aided and abetted Anonymous hacking operations for yours. He was caught helping one of their biggest heists at Stratfor. He is going down. Good! Trying to turn it into "fair use" like literature is preposterous. Of course providing information that assists in the commission of crimes is unlawful. That's why he's arrested, duh. He's likely not to get the full extent of the law in this case as the prosecution may not be able to make its case in every regard on all charges. But that Barrett Brown is going to be doing some serious time and will have been fairly, lawfully prosecuted I have no doubt in my mind. But that's because I'm not a geek and not a hacker, but a normal person so I don't have trouble seeing reality here.

So the CNN writer who informed me that Pirate Bay is a site where I can download movies illegally is aiding and abetting? It doesn't add up - you can't simply say 'providing information that assists in a crime' is illegal. Where do you draw the line? (not you, you. but the government)

...He's a hands-on, active, deeply involved griefer who aided and abetted Anonymous hacking operations for yours. He was caught helping one of their biggest heists at Stratfor....

Where's the proof?

catfitz40 wrote:

But that's because I'm not a geek and not a hacker, but a normal person so I don't have trouble seeing reality here.

You're suggesting that you have to be a 'normal' person to understand the reality behind the situation? I know you're upset that you got griefed by some kid in your videogame claiming they were with 'the Anonymous' but you don't have to dismiss anyone with labels who might see this otherwise.

(a)(2) knowingly transfer[] an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without lawful authority

He definitely did that. No way around it. (unless they somehow cannot link his machine to the IP, which I am guessing will be pretty difficult. I highly doubt he was dumb enough to not use a VPN or Tor)

Anonymous isn't anonymous. That's one of the many lies they tell in their Big Lie. They love to brag and are terribly vain and have hazing rituals that involve outing each other and thrusting some into the limelight, and some of them are so arrogant that they can't resist getting into the news. Barrett Brown is right where he needs to be.

Thanks for the batshit insane perspective, Prokofy Neva, as if speaking with such authority without attribution wasn't obvious enough.

This is all anyone needs to know about why you're in this thread and not haunting some other internet bridge at the moment:

catfitz40 wrote:

Barrett Brown in fact got his start in Second Life, the online virtual world. He was one of the people who used to grief people like me, by hacking into the platform provider's god-mode.

OMG that was fucking HILARIOUS, too!

catfitz40 wrote:

...You kids have to learn that the Internet is not special, not some magical autonomous unicorn realm.

You mean like Second Life?

catfitz40 wrote:

:WHARGARBBLE: ...But that's because I'm not a geek and not a hacker, but a normal person so I don't have trouble seeing reality here.

I just facepalmed so hard I think I lost an eye.

catfitz40 wrote:

SOPA was a perfectly sound law that in fact would have built up a good jurisprudence as to how to address these cases that would have stopped some of the alleged ICE abuses.

In other words, mere presence at the scene of a crime, even with guilty knowledge that a crime is being committed, isn't enough to make you liable for the crime itself, unless and until you do something to help the crime succeed.

(Emphasis mine)

While you have "guilty knowledge" that a crime may be committed, you do not know beforehand that crime will be committed and, should the crime take place, you have taken no active role in ensuring the success of the crime. It's not aiding and abetting. Therefore, unless it breaks some other law, it's not prosecutable.

The bit you posted is mostly correct; the issue is getting confused because of the context. All crimes have an "act" and a "mental state" connected with the act. To commit the crime, you have to do the "act" with the appropriate "mental state."

If a random guy happens to know the location of a crack house and volunteers the information at a party just because he knows it, there's no crime.

If someone asks random guy if he knows where a crack house is and, because he randomly knew it, he has also not committed a crime.

If (not so) random guy's friend runs the crack house, and random guy wants to help his friend's business prosper, and so to help his friend sell drugs he tells people where the crack house is, he *has* committed a crime. Specifically, he has committed dealing in cocaine.

In all of these examples, the only thing random guy did was tell someone where the crack house was (i.e., that was the only act he performed). The difference comes from the mental state associated with the act.

Breaking it down more, and using the statutes from my jurisdiction (redacted for clarity):

That's pretty straightforward: if you knowingly give cocaine to someone else, you're guilty of dealing in cocaine. That covers the person who runs the crack house.

For random guy, we look at the accomplice liability statute, which provides:

Quote:

A person who knowingly or intentionally aids, induces, or causes another person to commit an offense commits that offense[]

Inducing or causing aren't relevant here; aiding is. Generally, if I know that you are committing or intending to commit a crime, and I intentionally aid you in the commission of that crime, I am guilty of the same crime.

To expand slightly on the example above, if I know that you are selling cocaine, and with the intent to aid you in committing this crime, I tell people where your crack house is, I am also guilty of dealing in cocaine. (Conversely, if I tell them for *some other reason*, I'm not guilty of that crime.)

Keep in mind that the statement above is what the law is, but proving why someone was giving out the crack house address is more complicated.

WRT Brown, AFAICT, he isn't being prosecuted on a theory of accomplice liability, but as the primary. According to the indictment, he's charged with violating 18 USC 1028(a)(2), which makes it a crime to:

Quote:

(a)(2) knowingly transfer[] an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without lawful authority

IOW, if you know that this information is stolen [he's specifically charged concerning the "authentication feature," which is the CVV on the back of a credit card] and you knowingly give it to another person, you have committed the crime.

I guess I don't really see much of an issue with him having linked the data rather than, say, pasting it in the body of an e-mail. If it's a crime to give stolen credit card numbers to someone else, I don't think it matters, or should matter, whether you e-mail the numbers, mail the numbers by USPS, or post a link to the numbers.

Yes.

You don't even have to get into too much lawyering here. The context is one where the defendant frequented crack houses, constantly bragged about going to crack houses, etc., i.e. where crack house=hacking expeditions and victory dances by Anonymous members in IRC channels and various Internet social networking sites and forums. While forums lawyers constantly pretend that there is no such thing as "guilt by association," this context can shape the view of police and prosecutors in ways that no lawyer is going to try to undo.

Barrett Brown isn't an academic, or a reporter, or a chronicler or a blogger. He's active in the movement himself and brags about his hacking constantly. It's this need to victory dance that trips them up many times. Of course he knew that the Stratfor data bases were stolen. There's another matter whether the entire Stratfor case was a sting operation, of course, to flush out Anonymous after the HGPGary case which made both that contractor and the FBI pretty torqued and pretty determined to get these cunning Anonymous destroyers. But then it's not clear whether Brown knew that or when he knew it or what the story is.

Next up: theories from various nihilist hackers that if the Stratfor website and dbases are hackable, then they are public, and that it is "expected behaviour" if you jigger the website this way or that to "read it" and it is "not really a hack".

But rather than a physical back-alley hand-off, this alleged trafficking happened online when Barrett transferred a hyperlink, “from the Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channel called '#Anonops' to an IRC channel under Brown's control, called '#ProjectPM.'”

Unfortunately in the United States, there is precedent that mere linking makes one culpable of a crime. See all of the past stories about people arrested for hosting link aggregation sites to copyrighted material. I'm of the view that once the cat is out of the bag, the cat is out of the bag. If the government really wants to go after the "trafficker" then why not go after the person who uploaded the information the link pointed to?

It's funny that people like you both support the idea of going after the source and then support the idea of hiding the source at all costs (Wikileaks, MegaUpload encryption, ISP subpoena, etc etc).

Let's face it, there were 12 counts he was charged with, with plenty of serious charges involved, and the one you wanted to focus on was the fact he linked to something in an IRC chatroom. Typical internet; ignore the bigger picture, focus on a tiny subset of the issue, and then dramatically proclaim "oh but look at the terrifying precedent it sets!".

When dealing with something of this magnitude, you don't just give someone like him a "slap on the wrist". Doing so will encourage others by sending the message that "oh, they won't shoot the messenger, it's safe!"

I don't know about you, but although I have issues with how the internet is run and how it is governed, once financial information gets involved, it's lost ALL plausible strengths or advantages.

At the end of the day, no matter if it's the government or the "hackers", it's all about the fucking money. It's always about the money. People want to cash in on the internet, whether it's Dotcom through affiliates and hijacking internet ads, malware writers who find cruel and convincing ways of extorting money from people, or "hackers" who claim to be doing things in the name of fighting oppression and freedom but somehow ending up with credit card information.

In the end, the trail of deceit and politically charged "movements" always ends up becoming a trail of dollar bills.

But rather than a physical back-alley hand-off, this alleged trafficking happened online when Barrett transferred a hyperlink, “from the Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channel called '#Anonops' to an IRC channel under Brown's control, called '#ProjectPM.'”

Unfortunately in the United States, there is precedent that mere linking makes one culpable of a crime. See all of the past stories about people arrested for hosting link aggregation sites to copyrighted material. I'm of the view that once the cat is out of the bag, the cat is out of the bag. If the government really wants to go after the "trafficker" then why not go after the person who uploaded the information the link pointed to?

It's funny that people like you both support the idea of going after the source and then support the idea of hiding the source at all costs (Wikileaks, MegaUpload encryption, ISP subpoena, etc etc).

People "like me"? At any rate, they're two different situations. One is going after the source "of criminal activity" while the other is protecting the source "of evidence of criminal activity." In both cases, the goal is to expose criminals. It's funny how nuance is so lost on people like you.

Note: I'm mostly addressing your point about Wikileaks here since the other two examples you give are, frankly, bullshit.

But rather than a physical back-alley hand-off, this alleged trafficking happened online when Barrett transferred a hyperlink, “from the Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channel called '#Anonops' to an IRC channel under Brown's control, called '#ProjectPM.'”

Unfortunately in the United States, there is precedent that mere linking makes one culpable of a crime. See all of the past stories about people arrested for hosting link aggregation sites to copyrighted material. I'm of the view that once the cat is out of the bag, the cat is out of the bag. If the government really wants to go after the "trafficker" then why not go after the person who uploaded the information the link pointed to?

It's funny that people like you both support the idea of going after the source and then support the idea of hiding the source at all costs (Wikileaks, MegaUpload encryption, ISP subpoena, etc etc).

People "like me"? At any rate, they're two different situations. One is going after the source "of criminal activity" while the other is protecting the source "of evidence of criminal activity." In both cases, the goal is to expose criminals. It's funny how nuance is so lost on people like you.

Note: I'm mostly addressing your point about Wikileaks here since the other two examples you give are, frankly, bullshit.

It's funny how I literally just said that the internet has a tendency to take a large amount of information, take a tiny subset of it, and conveniently get upset about that instead.

That little nuance, my friend, is called irony. But your succinct explanation of "frankly, bullshit" should of course be enough for me to think you've logically thought out my points.

"In September, Brown was arrested by FBI just hours after he posted a YouTube video called “Why I'm Going to Destroy FBI Agent Robert Smith.” If convicted of these latest charges, the US Attorney's Office in the Northern District of Texas says that Brown faces maximum sentences of 15 years for the trafficking charge, 10 years for the device fraud charge, and a 2 year sentence for each of the identity theft counts, "in addition to any sentence imposed on the trafficking count."

A Darwinian event. Somebody too stupid to live unfettered. I suppose he thought that having been busted once, the FBI would leave him alone and quit watching him. Yes he deserves what he gets if only to improve the species by sequestering a moron from procreating.

My point actually was, anyone can say they are Anonymous. The fact that he thinks he was somehow a voice or 'representative' of the group them is laughable. He was a kid retweeting this stuff on twitter and hanging out in an IRC channel.

It doesn't matter if some of the actually clandestine Anonymous -- who could include anybody, even Russia's FSB or the Iranian secret police, you know? -- stay secret. Quite a few of them don't. Quite a few of them slip up. Like Sabu. Barrett Brown isn't just a showboat, he's part of the movement. They *are* this way. It's not an exception as you seem to think. That's why so many have already been arrested. You're not keeping track.

There's this crazy notion that this anarchist movement itself purveys that it is "huge" or "diverse" or "amorphous" blah blah blah. In fact, it's run as a rigid cadre organization with a few operatives and "those in the know" at the top, and the rest rigidly kept compliant with memes and hazing rituals who perform operations, sometimes unconsciously or stupidly. It's not a fun organization; it's a totalitarian organization.

You're suggesting that you have to be a 'normal' person to understand the reality behind the situation? I know you're upset that you got griefed by some kid in your videogame claiming they were with 'the Anonymous' but you don't have to dismiss anyone with labels who might see this otherwise.

First of all, I'm not griefed by "some kid". I'm griefed by professors in colleges; I'm griefed by a definitive movement with ideologies and 40-year-old men in Big IT jobs, not just "kids". The script kiddies are just the foot-soldiers in JP Barlow's war.

SL isn't a videogame, but actually an interesting prototyping place that various forces, from Anonymous to the US military, use to prototype their weapons. This isn't some conspiracy theory; they are open about it. But the most interesting thing that happens with SL is how the social affects of the Internet's development are prototyped -- not necessarily by conscious design or plan, but because it is a microcosm that amplifies and accelerates. So all kinds of hacking and privacy issues you see played out today massively online first occurred in this prototype world years ago.

And one thing I've learned by being exposed to the hundreds of developers who have come through the staff of Linden Lab that runs Second Life, as they find it a fascinating computing and simulation challenge (30,000 simulators creating an interactive dynamically user-generated world)-- developers from all the major IT companies from IBM to Adobe who have gone on to find jobs in social media at Facebook, Google, etc. -- is that they have a culture that is antithetical to human rights and the rule of law.

If Bradley Manning leaks a quarter million classified cables, they see this as "emergent behaviour" and "expected behaviour" and shrug. If Barrett Brown links to credit-card information so his little friends can steal the cards and buy themselves World of Warcraft (which is exactly what they did, they didn't just "give to charity"), then the open source cultists see this as merely copying; merely "literature" and they want the maximum possible lenient regime around it and the minimum possible consequences and accountability for themselves.

So no, it's not about being an old lady in a video game and some griefer digs up my e-lawn. It's much, much bigger. Today, Facebook gets rid of the user features voter. Tomorrow, the Facebook devs already drilling data in the Obama for America campaign wind up taking away the "no" vote and voting period from us all.

Basically (and in theory), if topham just mentioned offhand that it was a crack house, he's probably safe. If he knows the person is a crack addict, or was specifically asked, the situation changes.

I'm not sure what the rules are if you know a crime is going down but don't report it, e.g. failing to report the crack house. I want to say it's generally illegal (absent something like like a threat if you report), but I'm not sure.

While I appreciate your perspective, I don't believe it's correct. I don't believe giving the address of a crack house rises to the level of aiding and abetting.

In other words, mere presence at the scene of a crime, even with guilty knowledge that a crime is being committed, isn't enough to make you liable for the crime itself, unless and until you do something to help the crime succeed.

(Emphasis mine)

While you have "guilty knowledge" that a crime may be committed, you do not know beforehand that crime will be committed and, should the crime take place, you have taken no active role in ensuring the success of the crime. It's not aiding and abetting. Therefore, unless it breaks some other law, it's not prosecutable.

I think your quote actually reinforces my statement. You aren't responsible because you know where a crackhouse is located and didn't report it; likely ditto if you're unaware the person with you is or has a history of crack use. However if you know they're a crack user, and therefore likely to go to the house they just told you about, bam! you directly aided the crime.

Of course linking can be prosecuted. This isn't just merely writing about a subject or reading about a subject, it's providing material assistance to crime. You kids have to learn that the Internet is not special, not some magical autonomous unicorn realm. The rule of law applies in cyberspace.

I know the address of a crack house in the downtown area of my city. If I tell my friend "Hey, see that house, its a crack house" - should I prosecuted? Or better yet, I know the IRC address to AnonOps - if I give that information out, should I persecuted? Afterall, I am providing material assistance to where crimes take place.

If the Internet is not a special unicorn realm then maybe you should start paying attention to how ridiculous some of the laws are surrounding it.

Of course you should be prosecuted. Providing information *that assists in a crime* whether or paper or the Internet or by voice is going to be prosecuted. Barrett Brown didn't just say "oh, look at that shiny link," he participated avidly in a destructive movement that hacked sites deliberately to cause damage.

There aren't any ridiculous laws surrounding it. SOPA was a perfectly sound law that in fact would have built up a good jurisprudence as to how to address these cases that would have stopped some of the alleged ICE abuses.

So the CNN writer who informed me that Pirate Bay is a site where I can download movies illegally is aiding and abetting? It doesn't add up - you can't simply say 'providing information that assists in a crime' is illegal. Where do you draw the line? (not you, you. but the government)

Was this information unknown to authorities at the time? If so, then probably yes, CNN were acting against a law.

I'd say that this is unlikely though, given how well-known TPB is.

Not that I want to be dragged into this whole "linking" debate, but your example doesn't give much help to your case.

Of course linking can be prosecuted. This isn't just merely writing about a subject or reading about a subject, it's providing material assistance to crime. You kids have to learn that the Internet is not special, not some magical autonomous unicorn realm. The rule of law applies in cyberspace.

I know the address of a crack house in the downtown area of my city. If I tell my friend "Hey, see that house, its a crack house" - should I prosecuted?

If the Internet is not a special unicorn realm then maybe you should start paying attention to how ridiculous some of the laws are surrounding it.

If someone asks you where they can buy crack and you provide them with that address you are in fact committing a crime and can be prosecuted for it.

But I can't be arrested for volunteering the information. By simply knowing where something is, is not enough to prosecute.

You could not be more wrong. By providing information you make yourself and accessory to the crime check any state local or city statute. If you tell someone where to find your gun and the bullets and that person goes and kills someone. You are A liable for not reporting it and B liable for providing the means to which the murder occurred.